ADDED: Assume the architects intended to allude to the 9/11 image. Why would they do that? It can't be to give offense! Why would that be effective, to refer to 9/11 as if you were happy about it? If this building deliberately evokes the WTC in a state of destruction, it can't be to approve of the destruction, because the architects must want people to love their building. The point would need to be something more like: We defy the terrorists of the world. We stand for building skyscrapers in defiance of the nihilists.

Negative images can be adopted and re-purposed in a positive way. To cite an obvious example: the crucifixion of Christ. A crucifix is not displayed celebrate the torture and execution of Jesus. We invariably and easily understand it as a symbol of resurrection and eternal life.

So the building, if it indeed intentionally refers to the WTC, should be interpreted as a reaffirmation of the greatness of modern civilization.

Assume it does allude to the 9/11 image. Why would they do that? It can't be to give offense! Why would that be effective, to refer in a negative way, as if you were happy about what happened to the WTC? If it is meant to evoke the WTC in a state of destruction, it would need to mean something other than approval of the destruction, since you want people to love your building. It would need to mean something more like: We defy the terrorists of the world. We stand for building skyscrapers in defiance of the nihilists.

A negative image can be adopted and re-presented in a positive way. To cite an obvious example: the crucifixion of Christ. To depict and display that is not to celebrate the torture and execution of Jesus. It became a symbol of resurrection and eternal life.

So the building, if it indeed intentionally refers to the WTC, should be interpreted as a reaffirmation of the greatness of modern civilization.

Problem with the crucifix argument: early Christians didn't use it. I believe it was the shepherd figure that was a popular icon - crucifixion was just too real at the time. Crucifixes develop later to assist in making something that is distant real again. For reflection and empathy. Too soon for that for 9/11, I'm afraid.

I think they'd better scrap the plan. Koreans are as superstitious as us Chinese. When I looked at the picture, the first thing came to my mind was "Wow, eerie! I don't want to live there." Bad karma, bad fung-shui.

I order to achieve the effect they wanted to create, you would naturally need a second tower to support such a "bridge" I think it's accidental, but doing anything where structures expand upon one another in a tall building would resemble the collapsing towers.

"Problem with the crucifix argument: early Christians didn't use it. I believe it was the shepherd figure that was a popular icon - crucifixion was just too real at the time. Crucifixes develop later to assist in making something that is distant real again. For reflection and empathy. Too soon for that for 9/11, I'm afraid."

But my argument isn't about whether it's a good idea to evoke 9/11. My point is based on assuming that's what they did. Now: what were they trying to say? My argument is that they *must* have intended to repurpose it in a positive way.

You're overthinking this, Althouse - it's just a bit of a publicity stunt. This thing will never get built.

The Dutch architectural firm gets credit for being "edgy" without actually having to deliver a buildable design. tge South Koreans get some buzz surrounding their proposed skyscraper farm. Everyone has a bit of fun tweaking American sensitivities and maybe they get to play the martyr if the US officially registers its disapproval and the ROK government pressures them to drop the design that they never really intended to execute anyway.

Althorse said: So the building ... should be interpreted as a reaffirmation of the greatness of modern civilization.

Chip S replied: I've bolded the only thing wrong with this statement.

Exactly. As is clear from reactions, most people instantly and emotionally interpreted the buildings' meaning and found it offensive.

Had the architects tried their design out on a few focus groups, they would have learned this and, if they had any sense, consigned their drawings to the garbage pail where they belong.

Now that it's out there and most viewers take offense, how likely do you think they would be to change their visceral reaction on the basis of a syllogism contrived by some law professor to tutor them on how they "should" feel?

That would have to be one doozy of survey, since it would have to find that "we" invariably and easily -- INVARIABLY and EASILY! -- understand the meaning of the crucifix as set forth in the Gospel according to St. Blondehouse.

I would have to search her threads to find one that beats this one for blondeness.

The Republic of Korea has a love-hate relationship with the US. I lived there for two years one time They admire and absorb American popular culture, especially those parts that many Americans would loath to export. However, for many years, they lived under an authoritarian, semi-fascist government, that was supported by the US as being better than the communist government in the North. South Koreans assumed, rightly or wrongly, that every vicious and stupid thing their government did had the support and approval of the US. So, they love us, they are grateful for our support, and resent it because they need it. I think this is related to that dynamic.

Because South Koreans hate Americans. Especially South Koreans born after 1953.

Yep. The big international polling news this year, according to my local NPR station, is Pakistan's capture of first place in the ranking of national populations that most despise the US (with Japan on the other end, for obvious reasons).

I don't know why we have troops in Korea. The have a large enough economy to support a first rate military. Let them fend for themselves (along with Germany).